Core 9000 series

[Perfect_Chaos]

I think that's Cascade Lake, which is basically Coffee Lake-E (HEDT & server), and Whiskey Lake (mobile chips). I don't think the mainstream chips have been even rumoured to have any fixes - they are probably just Coffee/Kaby/Sky Lake on a slightly improved manufacturing process (again).

So we don't know how the patches will lower performance yet then, i thought i read there were potential hardware fixes coming for these chips but maybe it is just HEDT then.

Curious how AMD will do with Zen 2 as well, wonder if they'll surpass Intel or be very close or on par by then in gaming.

 

[IT Troll]

Performance is so close the only metric that matters (ignoring the many problems Intel have) is price, even if your plan is building a 1920x1080 games console with the latest top end Nvidia card.

In some cases Intel is 20-30% faster in gaming and I am not just talking 1080p. Stating otherwise is clear fanboyim. That’s like trying to claim Intel and AMD are priced so close that it doesn’t matter.

Intel have the gaming crown and AMD have the value crown. Everyone has a shiny hat.

 

[jigger]

@jigger I want to ask you a serious question now

Well if non of your previous questions are serious you are just a flamebaiting, trolling goon aren't you. Your questions are also based on assumptions so it's double pointless me answering.

What lake is this chip named after?

 

[jigger]

In some cases Intel is 20-30% faster

In very rare situations maybe, but using that as an example or trying to project that as the norm would be stupid.

 

[iakhtar]

Just did a quick test on geekbench4 to compare, 8086k @5ghz, I do have much faster ram whatever that's worth.

https://browser.geekbench.com/v4/cpu/9760134

9900k

https://browser.geekbench.com/v4/cpu/9742328

 

[Jamie Archer]

To defend your brand you mean lol. Dude without going around in circles both sides are good and both have different cpus to suit different needs.

I dont honestly have a side, that is the god's honest truth. I'd hate to be stuck with some sort of loyalty contract to intel and amd took a huge ipc leap and took the speed crown then i had to stay on intel, thats honestly not how i work. I consistently choose Intel because it is consistently better for me personally.

Here's my next big 'Waffle'....This will be quite long but this is really just me being friendly and conversing so people can see my background and get an insight as to who i am and why i am here. Nobody has to read it if they dont like a lengthy conversation, but this is what i call giving insight and substance by offering true definition of 'a point of view'

As a kid i remember owning a prebuilt packard bell with a pentium 2 or 3 label on the chassis, i first started building with core 2s and have had intel chips ever since (upgrading pretty much every year or so as an enthusiast).

Throughout the years i have repaired thousands of laptops and each and every laptop with an amd chip has had significantly poorer performance than the intel counterparts (plenty of hands on testing) and the prices have always represented this.

Amd has been renowned for suffering from heat issues for years, which in turn rendered many amd version laptops that had a dedicated gpu useless, the heat from the amd cpu used to melt the nearby leaded solder joint arrays of the gpus, leaving the laptop with no display/graphics, i saw this so many times i got a bit of a pet hate for amd in laptops, although in fairness, HP's were a main culprit for this as they often had a poorly designed heatsink as well.....

Amd has often been hugely hyped and yet has consistantly let people down over the years with poor performance/ipc and heat issues (fx chips in particular on desktops), so yes, i guess i do have a kind of sentimental soft spot for intel and do feel a tad negative about AMD, but that really is as far as it goes.
I keep saying the same thing, if amd suddenly outperformed intel for speed on a core for core basis (and proved this after hype), id swap in a heartbeat. If i regularly rendered and mostly relied on more cores to get the majority of my work done quicker (i dont) whilst also being less of a gamer, then id go for a TR4 chip now without question/hesitation. I'm not all intel as i will knock what i dislike and i really find their x299 a mess of a platform without having any true identitiy as to who it is really aimed at.

When amd announced all the facts and figures of Ryzen (1st gen) i was hooked, i felt it was going to be a pure performance gamer with the core count/multicore performance of intels top 1k HEDT or similar xeon server chips. I watched all the Lisa Su presentations and all the comparisons to the 6900k....it had me bought, i hyped it up myself, i defended it vs the intel fanboys and was all out going to buy it with my heart totally set on it (1800x), but before pulling the trigger i started seeing all the leaked disappointment videos prior to its release, i started to see how its IPC and clocks left it behind in games and how it suddenly wasnt as good as was hyped regarding its single core performance. This personally let me down performance wise, however it was still one hell of a jump for amd and it significantly closed a large gap on Intel (well done Amd).

This sudden jump from amd and Amd's further push for innovation of late, has seen intel push forward stuff im sure they were once happily sitting on whilst rinsing the customers for quad cores each year. So i do appreciate Amd and hope they keep pushing. I also wish they could have the same impact on Nvidia in the gpu market (nvidias complacency is starting to show and the little competition is resulting in a similar milking fashion with little innovation now needed as the clear market leader). Amd do offer huge benefits to people both in terms of current multicore performance and bang for buck, they have come leaps and bounds lately, but for me, they still have just that same hype that never seems to truly fill expectation.

I no longer consider Amd based on the hype train, they have sort of let me down previously, so they need to prove to me otherwise before i consider jumping ship..

Anyway to end this 'waffle' and insight, this is why i am here, i am excited for what is an improvement on an already mighty chip, it is both a performance increase on what is already the market leader as a gaming chip and it adds a further 2 more cores and 4 more threads of these same performing cores to the mutlicore performance equation, not only this but to top it all off theyve also fixed the thermal issue that the current gaming champ has by further soldering the IHS in this iteration.

Now i wont give anymore huge responses, i know it is too much for some, but can you at least appreciate my full insight as to why i am here and defending what i feel is the best performer for me personally, whilst others keep bashing it with nothing concrete or evidential to offer? (on a dedicated intel 9000 series enthusiast's thread)

 

[Jamie Archer]

Well if non of your previous questions are serious you are just a flamebaiting, trolling goon aren't you. Your questions are also based on assumptions so it's double pointless me answering.

What lake is this chip named after?

Ever heard of a figure of speech?, come on, i asked you pretty politely and decently for an honest answer to a pretty relevent question, can't you do that? or is the genuine answer to revealing and blowing your cover?

 

[jigger]

Ever heard of a figure of speech?, come on, i asked you pretty politely and decently for an honest answer to a pretty relevent question, can't you do that? or is the genuine answer to revealing and blowing your cover?

And there you go again... Why don't you just get to the point?

 

[AndreiD]

That i9 9900K geekbench result looks pretty beefy, ~30% gain in multicore vs 8700K,
~5% higher single and ~30% higher multi vs 8700K, no IPC improvements, the single bump is due to clocks
~30% higher single and ~25% higher multi vs 2700X

The main factor on how much they can snuff AMD is going to be pricing.

 

[jigger]

That i9 9900K geekbench result looks pretty beefy, ~30% gain in multicore vs 8700K,
~5% higher single and ~30% higher multi vs 8700K, no IPC improvements, the single bump is due to clocks
~30% higher single and ~25% higher multi vs 2700X

The main factor on how much they can snuff AMD is going to be pricing.

It will most likely be very similar to a 7820X because thats pretty much what it is. Higher clockspeed, hampered memory. It will probably run a lot hotter than 7820 and not scale to well with voltage.

 

[Jamie Archer]

And there you go again... Why don't you just get to the point?

I obviously don't get the point because you haven't given me the answer to the question i politely asked you. I'm not clairvoyant and if anyone else knows what point im supposedly meant to be getting, then please, help me and point out what I'm missing.

Come on, im trying to talk to you fairly and trying to be civil and debate. I don't think the question is irrelevant in any way..You just seem to avoid it. You come across as having a real dislike for Intel (if you have your own reasons that's fine) but I'm asking you why you'd come to a thread like this if you sort of see no value at all in anything Intel offers, no matter what anyone says.

Why is that such a bad question?

I get you feel that amd offers the best bang for buck and thats all that matters to be better and all that jazz, I just don't know why you come to put intel down on an Intel dedicated thread other than to be a WUM..I'm curious and I'm sure a lot are as well.

You've seen my genuine reasons and a whole essay (or 10) and an autobiography on my point of view., give us something back.
I'm not on amd threads to put amd down, it is pointless to me, so I am asking you, why?

 

[Jamie Archer]

It will most likely be very similar to a 7820X because thats pretty much what it is. Higher clockspeed, hampered memory. It will probably run a lot hotter than 7820 and not scale to well with voltage.

See what i mean, total negativity even with the positives in front of you, this is why im asking you, why are you here on an intel dedicated thread if youre so negative towards intel?

 

[AndreiD]

It will most likely be very similar to a 7820X because thats pretty much what it is. Higher clockspeed, hampered memory. It will probably run a lot hotter than 7820 and not scale to well with voltage.

It's just going to be a 8700K + 2 extra cores since this won't be using mesh or the Skylake-SP cache hierarchy, it's going to smash anything with 8 cores in consumer workloads and probably give the 7900X/7920X and 1920X/2920X a run for their money if it can reach >5Ghz all core when overclocked.

 

[Jamie Archer]

It's just going to be a 8700K + 2 extra cores since this won't be using mesh or the Skylake-SP cache hierarchy, it's going to smash anything with 8 cores in consumer workloads and probably give the 7900X/7920X and 1920X/2920X a run for their money if it can reach >5Ghz all core when overclocked.

Sounds amazing to me personally, this is why i really cant see this being cheap, especially knowing what they already ask for the 8086k.
I've seen you believe the rumoured pricing is false, what is your estimated guess on RRP?

 

[AndreiD]

@Jamie Archer No idea what they'll price it at, it's all speculation at this point.
Die size is going to end up being around the 180mm2 mark (7700K is ~123mm2 and +2 extra cores in the 8700K ended up at ~149mm2), so it's going to be a fairly small die on a very mature process, which means yields aren't going to be an issue. It's all going to depend on what margins Intel wants to extract out of it, their 14nm is at capacity due to increased demand in all markets, so they also increased their margins (as seen with recent Intel chip price bumps), but they could also price it lower to take back some market share from AMD until AMD releases Zen 2. Additionally 7700K to 8700K, despite the bigger die, was only a $10~20 MSRP increase, I wouldn't consider the 8086K as the baseline for the 6 core pricing since it's a special edition CPU, but they also want to carve out a new niche with the i9 moniker in the consumer area.
Difficult to say honestly, my wild speculation for the i9 9900K is $400~$500 MSRP, so £400~500 for us. It could be lower if Intel wants to pressure AMD.
The 9700K will probably have a similar MSRP to the 8700K ($360~$370), so that might be the sweet spot if you want 8 fast cores for gaming.

 

[Jamie Archer]

@Jamie Archer No idea what they'll price it at, it's all speculation at this point.
Die size is going to end up being around the 180mm2 mark (7700K is ~123mm2 and +2 extra cores in the 8700K ended up at ~149mm2), so it's going to be a fairly small die on a very mature process, which means yields aren't going to be an issue. It's all going to depend on what margins Intel wants to extract out of it, their 14nm is at capacity due to increased demand in all markets, so they also increased their margins (as seen with recent Intel chip price bumps), but they could also price it lower to take back some market share from AMD until AMD releases Zen 2. Additionally 7700K to 8700K, despite the bigger die, was only a $10~20 MSRP increase, I wouldn't consider the 8086K as the baseline for the 6 core pricing since it's a special edition CPU, but they also want to carve out a new niche with the i9 moniker in the consumer area.
Difficult to say honestly, my wild speculation for the i9 9900K is $400~$500 MSRP, so £400~500 for us. It could be lower if Intel wants to pressure AMD.
The 9700K will probably have a similar MSRP to the 8700K ($360~$370), so that might be the sweet spot if you want 8 fast cores for gaming.

Yeah, it isnt just the gaming performance (although i'm mostly a gamer), I use blender and use some multicore workloads on odd occasions too, this just seems to be an all round perfect chip for my personal needs. I guessed ocuk would sell for £519.99, if it does in fact release for lower than £500, that would be simply amazing in my eyes.

I remember that renowned bang for buck amd 1800x releasing for £499.99 (with the same core/thread count) and that could only do 3.9ghz oc and could only run memory below 3000mhz, if this is released for lower than that, then it just goes to show that intel doesnt only offer top performance core for core anymore, they can also do it for less than ive seen the competition do previously, making it massive bang for buck as well, but we shall see i guess

 

[Troezar]

Yeah, it isnt just the gaming performance (although i'm mostly a gamer), I use blender and use some multicore workloads on odd occasions too, this just seems to be an all round perfect chip for my personal needs. I guessed ocuk would sell for £519.99, if it does in fact release for lower than £500, that would be simply amazing in my eyes.

I remember that renowned bang for buck amd 1800x releasing for £499.99 (with the same core/thread count) and that could only do 3.9ghz oc and could only run memory below 3000mhz, if this is released for lower than that, then it just goes to show that intel doesnt only offer top performance core for core anymore, they can also do it for less than ive seen the competition do previously, making it massive bang for buck as well, but we shall see i guess

Jamie your comparison on value is way out. At the time the 1800X was $500 you had to spend $1000 on the 6900K or drop down to a 6 core chip for closer to the 1800X price but still pay the HEDT tax on Intel. AM4 was brand new so some memory issues was not unusual, Intel have had similar ones themselves with new platforms.

This was the reason the Ryzen chips sent a shockwave through the industry, they offered massive bang for buck and not Intel. They still do

 

[SiDeards73]

Given that latest Geekbench rumor, I will say again, the 9900k will be around £500+.

Its performance is basically on par with the 7900X but without the HEDT features, you think Intel is going to invalidate 7900X sales by pricing the 9900k around £400? That would render the 7900X useless at its price point.

Not to mention Intel would then need to drop the price of every chip below it.

If they drop it in the £500-600 mark it fits perfectly for price and performance.

Remember this is Intel, they only dropped the 8700k and 8086k so cheap is because they had to, to stay within a price range of AMD.

Anyone thinking Intel is going to offer 7900X performance for the price of the 8086k is kidding themselves, Intel are about to milk the market with the 9900k and the other 9 series chips because they will have the defacto best CPU for mainstream for the foreseeable future.

I expect the straight up 8 core 9 series to be £450+.

 

[AndreiD]

Like I've said before, it won't compete against the 7900X because Intel is also releasing a new HEDT line based on Cascade Lake dies.

 

[Troezar]

It seems like rather than compete at a price point Intel have just added a new more expensive tier, much like Nvidia. It amazes me how it works every time but then they wouldn't be doing it if it didn't. Fortunately at least we have a choice in CPUs at the moment unlike GPUs.